EU: Ban on GM Crops Would Violate Farmers' Liberty

BRUSSELS, Belgium, March 7, 2003 (ENS) - There is little justification for European Union legislation to govern management of genetically modified crops, the European Commission said today in a communication on the "coexistence" of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. This conclusion will be hard fought by Europe's environmental movement, which could have the backing of several governments.

The Commission said a ban of the cultivation of genetically modified crops in EU member states "has to be excluded," since "the protection of economic interests alone cannot be invoked as a legally valid justification for imposing such strong limitations on fundamental liberties."

Ecologists analyze spread of weeds in a field of genetically modified maize, or corn. Disposal overalls prevent transfer of pollen to conventional crops. (Photo by Mark Hill courtesy Center for Ecology and Hydrology/British Ecological Society)

With regard to genetically modified organisms (GMOs), no EU member state should be allowed to declare itself a "GMO free zone," nor should such zones even be created "against the will of some farmers," the Commission said.

"Co-existence raises questions which have to be addressed, said Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler today. "Co-existence is about economic and legal questions, not about risks or food safety, because only authorized GMOs can be cultivated in the EU."

Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the European Environmental Bureau, which represents 134 member organizations in 25 countries, accused the Commission of "dodging its responsibility" as EU legislative initiator on the issue of genetic contamination in agriculture.

Italy, France, Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, Denmark, Belgium, Greece and Portugal have asked the Commission to propose strict and precise rules in order to ensure co-existence in agriculture. They want to guarantee the right of European farmers to grow conventional and organic crops.

In contrast to the language of "crop purity" and "contamination" used by opponents of genetically modified crops, the Commission's communication document talks of thresholds for adventitious presence and the importance of differences between crops and regions.

European Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler (Photo courtesy The Polish Voice)

"The application of co-existence measures is not new," Commissioner Fischler said. "Already in conventional farming, seed producers, for example, have a great deal of experience of implementing farm management practices to ensure seed purity standards."

To prevent the contamination of organic crops with genetically modified ones, the Commission suggests isolation distances between fields, buffer zones, pollen barriers, and control of self-sown plants.

Farmers could also manage the separation by crop rotation and planting arrangements for different flowering periods; and monitoring during cultivation, harvest, storing, transport, and processing, the Commission said.

Environmental groups attacked the document before its publication this week, insisting that only "hard legislation" will protect conventional and organic agriculture from contamination genetically modified organisms.

They were joined today by three Socialist members of the European Parliament's Environment Committee - Karin Scheele, Torben Lund, and Guido Sacconi - who called on the Commission to launch a "new, more ambitious" proposal.

Genetically modified soy beans. (Photo courtesy FAO)

"EU legislation is necessary to establish the principle that those extra costs must be borne by the GMO growers responsible for the contamination," the environmental groups say.

Farmers association Copa-Cogeca welcomed the communication and in particular the Commission's commitment to addressing liability in the case of contamination.

On the question of liability, the Commission considers that the first step must be to find out whether the existing national laws do not already offer sufficient and equal possibilities in this regard. Another question that arises is how to establish the causality link between the action and the damage.

Today's discussion will serve as a basis for a round table on co-existence on April 24 where stakeholders will have their say. Then, said Fischler, "the Commission will quickly bring forward guidelines."

{ENDS Environment Daily contributed to this report. Environmental Data Services Ltd, London}